Where Islam spreads, freedom dies

Heartening news from an unlikely quarter today: 48% of the British people say they would consider voting for a "far-right" party that dispensed with violent imagery. The news comes from a poll conducted on behalf of the far-left anti-European extremist organisation Searchlight. According to the report in the Observer, "48% of the population would consider supporting a new anti-immigration party committed to challenging Islamist extremism."

Predictably, the bien-pensant elite have called the results disturbing, but the rest of us will find them greatly encouraging. Naturally, the elite is trying to explain away the poll results as a consequence of "economic pessimism".

The poll suggests that the level of backing for a far-right party could equal or even outstrip that in countries such as France, the Netherlands and Austria. France's National Front party hopes to secure 20% in the first round of the presidential vote next year. The Dutch anti-Islam party led by Geert Wilders attracted 15.5% of the vote in last year's parliamentary elections.

One interesting aspect of the poll results is that support for restriction on immigration is high even among people who are themselves of recent immigrant origin. In fact, 39% of "Asian Britons" want immigration to be stopped completely or until economic growth recovers compared to 34% of white Britons.

43% of Asian Britons, 63% of white Britons and 17% of black Britons agreed with the statement that "immigration into Britain has been a bad thing for the country". Just over half of respondents – 52% – agreed with the proposition that "Muslims create problems in the UK".

It's amazing that only 52% of people agree with the proposition that Muslims create problems in the UK. Who are the other 48%? How could anyone in their right mind disagree with that statement?

The poll also touched on free speech. 60% said they should be allowed to say whatever they like about religion, while 42% said the same thing about race. I actually find these results disturbing. It's shocking that 40% of the population think free speech should be restricted on the topic of religion and that 58% think it should be on the topic of race. Those people are contemptible. They do not deserve to live in a free country. They are unworthy of the country their ancestors built for them.

Sarkozy's UMP, the ruling party in France, is currently conducting an intense internal debate about the appropriate response to the islamification of the country. Concern about Islam is growing among ordinary people. Marine Le Pen, the fresh-faced leader of the National Front, is at 20% in the pools, having ditched much of the baggage her predecessor, and father, loved to carry around with him, such as anti-semitism. In particular, her focus on the "prières de rue" (street prayers) in which Muslims illegally take over whole streets to engage in mass prayer, blocking traffic and pedestrians, has had an impact on the French consciousness.

The UMP are struggling to formulate a response. A debate on the role of religion in French life has been announced for May, though everyone knows it is really Islam that is going to be debated. Some in the UMP advocate a formal alliance, or an informal entente, with the National Front; and advocate push-back against the islamification that is sweeping over France. For example, some are calling for street prayers to be explicitly banned, even though they are already illegal. Others call for the preaching in mosques to be in French only.

But others within the UMP react to Islam by embracing dhimmitude. Some are calling for the 1905 French law on secularism, a bedrock of the French republic, to be repealed and for the state to then finance the construction of mosques. The Muslims are praying in the streets not as a gesture of defiance, but because they have nowhere else to pray, their argument runs. In this scenario, as is so often the case, the Muslims would be rewarded for their criminality and France would slip further into the Ummah.

In Austria, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted and fined for "denigrating religious teachings" for pointing out that the con-man Mohammed liked little girls. The judge admitted that Mohammed had demonstrated sexual interest in little girls by raping little Aisha when she was 6 (or 9, by some accounts) but claimed that because he was still "married" to Aisha when she was 18, he was therefore clearly interested in sexually mature women, too, so it was wrong to call him a paedophile. An utterly preposterous argument, particularly in light of the fact that Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff had never actually used the word paedophile.

In France, journalist Eric Zemmour was convicted of incitement to racial discrimination for having observed that "the majority of drug dealers are blacks and Arabs." He was fined and given a suspended prison sentence. Predictably, the French communist party and the assorted leftists and ideologues who filed complaint against him rejoiced at the verdict. Some other politicians expressed unease however. 58 deputies of Sarkozy's party, the UMP, signed a statement calling for a change in the law to protect freedom of expression.

It is illegal in France to collect statistics on racial and religious minorities. A few years ago, however, one intrepid researcher concluded, on the basis of names and dietary preferences, that a majority of the criminals in French prisons were Muslims. As in most of the heresy trials underway around Europe, in this case the truth was no defence.

In Britain, ex-magician Paul Daniels has run into controversy for insisting that there is nothing wrong with the word "Paki", comparing it to "Brit" and "British". This happens to be a particular bugbear of mine. Of course there is nothing wrong with the word "Paki". It is a perfectly natural abbreviation of the long and awkward to pronounce "Pakistani". But the British left waged a successful propaganda campaign, partly financed with taxpayer money, to convince people that this diminutive form was somehow offensive. Now you can be convicted in Britain merely for using the word Paki. For example, a few years ago a football supporter was convicted of an offence for chanting "You're just a town full of Pakis" at the opposing supporters when his team were playing Oldham Athletic. On the Daily Telegraph website, any comment featuring the word Paki will be quickly removed.

Meanwhile, Pakistanis themselves are happy to use this diminutive form, as demonstrated here and here. If you ever watch C-Span, you will see Americans using the abbreviations Pak or Paki without inhibition when talking about Pakistani foreign policy. But here in Britain, to do so is a criminal offence.

Last week, late at night, a woman was dragged off a street in the centre of Glasgow and raped by three men. The Conservative MSP, Bill Aitken, was approached for comment by a journalist and, in discussion with him, hinted that the woman may not have been entirely blameless in the matter.

"Well, I think, errr, somebody should be asking her what she was doing in Renfrew Lane. Did she go there with somebody?...Well, it is an area where quite a lot of the hookers take their clients. Now, that may not have happened in this case. But, you know. What was happening?"

Political opponents in Scotland immediately denounced Aitken's insensitivity and demanded his resignation. Here is a typical screed in that vein from the Telegraph of all places. The New Statesman has also covered the issue, albeit only in a blog post. There is also a Facebook page campaigning for him to be sacked.

This is the kind of issue that the Guardian would normally pounce on, agitating for the dismissal of the offending party. And with Cast Iron Dave in charge of the Conservative Party, there would be every chance of that dismissal being achieved. But, strangely, Rusbridger's minions have been completely silent on this issue. What's going on? The answer comes when we look at who the perpetrators of the rape were. Police say they are looking for men "of Middle-Eastern appearance". This follows the pattern of recent city-centre gang rapes in Glasgow, all believed to have been committed by immigrants, especially immigrants of the Muslim persuasion.

Under Alan Rusbridger's disastrous editorial reign, the Guardian has jettisoned the liberal principles it once championed and turned itself into little better than a standard bearer for the global jihad. Obviously, drawing attention to the Muslim rape gangs now infesting many European cities doesn't aid the cause of Islam, so the Guardian would prefer to ignore the feminist aspect and remain completely silent on the issue. This is because, in the Utopian worldview, although there is a great variety of victim groups in the world - people whose victim status grants them a degree of special protection from those on high - Muslims are deemed to be the greatest victims of all. The Utopians are willing to sacrifice their other approved victim groups to protect their precious Muslims. This is why the Establishment routinely stoops to racism by referring to Muslim perpetrators as "Asian", needlessly slurring perfectly innocent Hindus, Chinese and Sikhs.

The headline may sound sensational but this is the truth that emerges from reading a secret UN document recently obtained by the French news channel, France24.

Rumours that the Muslim Kosovars and Albanians had harvested and sold the organs of Serb captives during the war of Kosovan independence, and that the leadership of the Kosovo Liberation Army (which subsequently became the leadership of independent Kosovo), had been involved in this diabolical trade have been circulating for years. But this latest document brings some horrifying new truths to light.

It makes it clear that the practice continued even after the war was over; that the victims were specifically captured in order that their organs could be harvested; that victims were not just Serbs, but East European Christians in general; that the victims were not just men, but women; and that the perpetrators were not just Albanian Muslims, but Muslims from the Middle East and Turkey.

The documents describe an "Arab doctor" with an air of "authority" who supervised the organ extraction operations. After the organs had been removed, the patients would, of course, die. Their organs would be flown to Istanbul in Turkey while their human remains were buried in remote places in Albania. The KLA leader responsible for these atrocities is described as having "extremely good relationships with the Middle East and Turkey. Many Islamists came to the bases in [redacted] before and during the war."

So this was an international Muslim crime network, capturing Christians, including young women, harvesting their organs and slaughtering them. In some cases the Christians were held captive for a considerable time before being killed. These captives were well treated, exempt from the casual beatings which the Muslims routinely administered on their other Christian captives - out of fear that the beatings would damage the organs; they were given good food to fatten them up like farm animals until an order came in (from a wealthy Muslim client in Turkey or the Middle East) for their specific organ type.

Even Baroness Warsi, the Muslim operative who now chairs the Conservative Party (sic), admitted that Muslim, sorry "Asian", vote fraud cost the Conservatives an absolute majority during the general election last year. But the Electoral Commission has concluded that there is "no evidence to date of any widespread, systematic attempts to undermine or interfere with the 2010 elections through malpractice".

Their reason for reaching this conclusion is apparently that there has been only 1 conviction arising from the 232 complaints made. If no one was convicted for it, it can't have happened, their logic runs! The one man convicted was called Terry Daley. Not a Muslim by the sound of it, so it's alright to convict him then!

Even the usually Muslim-friendly Independent newspaper expresses disdain for this verdict. Unsurprising, perhaps, as one of their own reporters was assaulted by some of the Muslims engaged in the vote fraud operation as he tried to investigate it. This is what it takes for the Utopians to wake up to the consequences of their own folly. They need to be literally punched in the face by it.

In the last few days the Daily Mail has published stories about unpleasant goings-on inside Muslim faith schools in Britain, including teaching hatred of non-Muslims and the use of violence against pupils. Channel 4 also broadcast a Dispatches documentary on the same subject. One of the men shown striking the pupils on tape has now been arrested.

One disturbing aspect of these revelations is that the school was subject to inspect and received glowing reports from the inspectors:

Pupils understand the difference between right and wrong and their moral development is supported by the excellent role models presented by the teachers and Islamic scholars. This has a very strong and positive influence upon pupils. Relationships between teachers and pupils are excellent. Pupils say that staff are approachable and easily accessible. They participate enthusiastically in lessons and confidently engage with theirteachers as well as showing them appropriate respect.

In reality the film showed pupils literally cowering in fear when their teachers drew close to them.

Through both the Islamic studies and the secular curriculum pupils learn about the beliefs and practices of other faiths and are taught to show respect to other world religions.

In reality, pupils were taught that "Disbelievers [kuffar] are the worst of people".

What has gone unremarked as far as I can see is that this is one of the schools inspected not by Ofsted directly, but by the Bridge Inspectorate. The Bridge Inspectorate was a special body created a few years ago by groups of Christians and Muslims who thought that conventional Ofsted inspections were insufficiently sensitive to their faith traditions. Ofsted agreed to let this body carry out inspections of some faith schools.

According the 2009 Bridge Inspectorate report, the only one appearing on their website, children at this school spend five hours learning the Koran off by heart! How can that possibly leave enough time for learning non-religious subjects appropriately?

The Islamic curriculum is wide in scope and is divided into two distinct parts. One group of pupils undertake to memorise the entire Qu’ran by heart. These hifz pupils For use from January 2009 spend three hours in the morning before lunch in this aspect of the curriculum; they then study secular subjects in the afternoon followed, by a further two hours of Qu’ranic study in the late afternoon or early evening.

At the time the Bridge Inspectorate was formed, concerns were expressed that it would be insufficiently objective. Now those concerns have been fully realised. Any civilised society has a variety of watchdog mechanisms which operate to safeguard the maintenance of civilised standards within that society. What we have learned of the Crown Prosecution Service, the schools inspectorate, and Britain's major political parties, tells us that the Muslims are successfully infiltrating and subverting these organisations from within in order to advance an Islamic agenda.

The new Free Schools initiative being promoted by the Conservatives will only intensify the problem of Muslim pupils being taught a separatist curriculum that does not prepare them for integrated life in modern Europe. Indeed, the first taxpayer-funded free school madrassah has already been approved. The Times newspaper uncovered some disturbing facts about its first director:

Although the Rainbow school is intended to be multifaith, Ismail, 39, the operations director of an Asian business association in Bradford, has previously submitted a highly controversial report to the council about education. Written more than a year ago on behalf of the Bradford Council for Mosques, it claimed that educating Muslim children separately spared them being “exposed” to values that may conflict with their own culture. He added that the “cultural heritage that underpins the curriculum is European and Christian” and that separate education could avoid the “danger of absorption into the dominant culture”.

Of course the Muslim madrassahs can promote their schools as "multifaith" in order to get funding. In reality, of course, they know that the areas where they operate will have been so colonised by Muslims that there will almost no one else left there and the few non-Muslim families who remain would not want their children to be brainwashed in one of these schools.

Apparently the Darul Uloom Islamic High School & College in Birmingham, which taught hatred of non-Muslims, has now shut down temporarily by bringing forward half term, claiming that they fear far-right violence. Isn't it funny how whenever Muslims are caught exposing their true nature, usually by carrying out some attack, they immediately conjure up the fantasy of revenge attacks by outraged kuffar and the Establishment invariably goes along with them in this? Of course, these revenge attacks never materialise but the ploy always serves to distract attention from Muslim wrong-doing and switch public sympathy on to the perpetrators.

Bizarrely, the Daily Mail website now says it cannot accept comments on the story "for legal reasons". The scope of censorship is extending ever further through the British media landscape whenever Muslims or Islam are being discussed. A few days ago the Independent ran a disgraceful story calling Thilo Sarrazin "anti-semitic". Most of the comments to the article pointed out that this was an unjustified slur and expressed support for his views. As a result, the comments to the article were deleted and the option to comment on the article simply shut down. The same trick was pulled on a Yasmin Alibhai-Brown article the previous week. Any time the European people find an outlet to express their true feelings about the islamification of the continent, the Establishment steps in and finds a way to shut it down.

There has been a lot of naive talk about how the uprising in Egypt represents a flowering of democracy and human rights in the Middle East. The Guardian, especially, and predictably, has been relentless in promoting this line of thought and pushing the "Muslim Brotherhood aren't that bad" hypothesis. Today, one of the Telegraph's token lefties, Tom Chivers, chips in with similar thoughts:

But these last 12 days in Egypt have shown, as if it needed showing, that the demand for civil rights, equality and democracy is as strong among many Muslims as among Westerners.

But we do have recent survey data that show the state of public feeling in Egypt, so it is not purely a matter of supposition. The Pew Global Attitudes Survey conducted research in Egypt only last year, and produced some interesting findings:

95% of Egyptians think it's good that Islam plays a large role in politics. Whoops. Looks like they must be "islamists" then, right?

Many Muslims see a struggle between those who want to modernize their country and Islamic fundamentalists. Only in Jordan and Egypt do majorities say there is no such struggle in their countries (72% and 61%, respectively).

So a clear majority of Egyptians think Islamic fundamentalists are "modernisers".

At least three-quarters of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan say they would favor making each of the following the law in their countries: stoning people who commit adultery, whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion.

So, even if an authentic democracy emerged from the turmoil, that democracy is likely to be very far from western ideals. Indeed, Egypt was only able to make peace with Israel because it was a dictatorship, not despite that fact. A clear majority of the Egyptian people disapproved of the peace that was made. If Egypt becomes authentically democratic, war may well be the result. We have also seen that the democratisation of Iraq resulted in a wave of persecution against Christians. The same may happen in Egypt.

All in all, I think the best thing would be for Mubarak to simply massacre the protesters. It sounds harsh, but it may prevent a far greater evil from emerging. Naive idealism has been the source of many problems in the world. We saw the West insistently demand democracy in the west bank only to change their mind when Hamas won the election.

In my view, many people view the history of the world through the wrong prism. They tend to see it as a tale of advancing popular participation in government, starting with the age of despotic emperors and moving towards modern democracy. But, as Christopher Hitchens pointed out, democracy is really an epiphenomenon - a secondary effect - of secularism. Democracy is based on the concept of rational discussion to chart the best course for a country. Arguments are advanced, evidence is cited, the demos weighs it all up and decides. But if people still have their psyches steeped in primitive magical beliefs, if they believe the best way forward for a nation is determined not by rational discussion or the presentation of evidence, but by ancient divine revelation, then clearly democracy will not work for them.